Macomb County is in the minority when it comes to the video recording of child victims of sexual and other abuse.

Macomb is one of seven of 22 Michigan child advocacy centers that do not video and audio record forensic interviews of children suspected to be victims of abuse. Nationwide, only about 5 percent of the centers do not record the interviews.

The top law enforcement official in each jurisdiction makes the policy, and Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith said he opposes recording the interviews because it can only harm the prosecution’s case by potentially “impeaching” the child.

“The child has to testify no matter what,” Smith said. “All it (recording) does is call for the defense to look at it. It can only be used to contradict the child. It’s never good for us.”

Advertisement

The video cannot be shown by the prosecution during the trial, but the defense can use it during the trial to try to contradict the youngster on the stand, he noted

Smith, who prosecuted sex offenders for eight years before being elected to the top post in 2004, said the vast majority of cases are he-said she-said style. A child’s credibility is key, and children often disclose gradually, not in one interview, so the video recording may not capture the entire case.

“Unfortunately, sex crimes never occur in a mall (in front of others),” he said. “The defendants do it in such a way that’s it’s the word of the child against the word of the defendant.”

But many other lawyers and child advocates disagree and believe the interviews should be recorded to provide a definitive account of the allegations and reduce the trauma for the child with a single interview.

Child advocacy centers in Oakland, Wayne and Lapeer counties record the interviews. Centers in St. Clair and Washtenaw counties do not record.

“The tape is evidence that is reviewed by our assistant prosecutors and is important evidence in our warrant charging decisions,” said Maria Miller, spokeswoman for Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.

Sarah Bannon, chief operating officer of the Wayne County center, Kids Talk Child Advocacy Center, said recording allows law enforcement officials to review the case multiple times and the single interview defines the case.

“When you do multiple interviews, you often get confusion and multiple variations,” Bannon said.

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper and Carol Furlong of Oakland County Care House did not return messages seeking comment.

Ninety-five percent of child advocacy centers nationwide video record interviews, according to the latest survey by the National Children’s Alliance, which accredits the centers, spokeswoman Cori Plotkin Streetman said. She said the Alliance “has no stance” on the legal aspects but supports recording because it allows Alliance officials to evaluate forensic interviewers for accreditation of child advocacy centers.

Amy Russell, in a 2009 article for National Child Protection Training, says recording interviews “outweigh the challenges and shortcomings that arise with the practice” because “it allows for a more complete investigation.”

Recording helps ensure the child is not influenced to make false accusations, she says. It “negates challenges about suggestive interview practices (and) repudiates the argument that prosecutorial objectives drive interviews,” Russell says.

Criminal defense attorneys Richard Rosenberg, based in Madison Heights, and Mount Clemens-based James Galen said the interviews should be recorded.

“All the defense attorneys I know would rather that they be recorded,” Rosenberg said.

Rosenberg said he opposes children being interviewed at child advocacy centers because “they are not neutral” sites and encourage the reporting of allegations. He worries that officials coach the child before the recording starts and activate it when the accusations start, he said.

But he said he prefers a video record of an interview over no record.

“Without it, we’re at the mercy of the prosecutor,” he said. “Given the terrible consequences of a conviction, I believe we ought to be very, very careful about how we amass this evidence.”

He suggested as further protection, all contact with the youth accuser should be recorded.

Galen said the video recording can provide “facial expressions, hand gestures, tears, smiles and giggles” that may help determine a child’s credibility.

Studies show that more plea deals result in counties where recording takes place, according to an official. That also reduces the cost to the justice system.

But Smith also is concerned about a copy of the recording being given to the defendant who may enjoy watching the child describe the incidents, often in graphic detail.

Rosenberg, who has been practicing for 30 years, said he doesn’t provide a copy of the video to the defendant. He accompanies his client in observing it for the first time.

Dorie Vazquez-Nolan, executive director of Macomb County Care House, which last year conducted nearly 400 interviews with children, said the process in Macomb “seems to be working” despite the lack of video.

She said a group of officials — a police officer, an assistant prosecution attorney and often a Child Protective Services worker and counselor — watch each interview in a separate room via a camera in Care House’s multilevel facility in Mount Clemens. Two Care House staffers also attend to “take as close to verbatim notes as possible,” she said.

Vazquez-Nolan said Macomb Care House typically conducts one quality interview with the child.

“Our goal is to minimize the trauma associated with multiple interviews,” she said. “However, if something new comes up, the child is likely to be interviewed again. We feel that Care House is the best place for that interview to happen.”

In Michigan, 8,005 suspected child abuse victims were interviewed at 26 centers in 2012, according to the Alliance.